Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suburban Secrets (film)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. North America1000 03:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Suburban Secrets (film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails NFILM and the GNG. No assertion of notability. No independent reliable sourcing (all references are to the video itself. PROD tendentiously removed without explanation or article improvement by the usual suspect.) The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.  (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Due diligence:
 * director:
 * star:
 * star:
 * studio:
 * producer:
 * and:
 * aka:

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * KEEP per due diligence showing this not-porn but adult-themed sexploitation film by Joseph W. Sarno as just meeting WP:GNG and WP:NF. Was really quite easy to find authored reviews at DVD Verdict. 10k Bullets, Exploitation Retrospect,  Plume Noire, and others.  I politely remind that since a topic's notability is found through sources being available, used or not, no article ever has to specifically say "I am notable because".  This simply needs editorial attention, and not deletion for a lack.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 19:11, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per MichaelQSchmidt. -- do ncr  am  00:28, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And MichaelQSchmidt expanded the article, including adding a "Reception" section with multiple reviews, and I added a bit from Sarno's 2010 NYT obituary. Wherever the article was before, it is now clearly over the "Keep" line IMHO. -- do  ncr  am  20:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep subject of the article meet WP:GNG and WP:NF. Another nomination with a complete lack of WP:BEFORE. Many thanks to Sir. Michael for this diligent work. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 10:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.